Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 18:32, 9 August 2013

BGM-75 AICBM

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review

Result pending

Considering good article criteria: Snowman (talk) 14:09, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

• Criteria 1a. Some jargon is difficult to understand. I do not know what a hardened silo is and what difference 10 times hardening would make. I also do not know what a super-hardened silo is. "railroad-based deployment"; sounds vague and lacks detail; "penetration aids under development"; sounds vague to me. Snowman (talk) 14:09, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
  • This is why silos and penetration aids are linked - so that they can be explained. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 14:27, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
• Criteria 1b. The introduction is too short. Snowman (talk) 14:09, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Expanded some a bit. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 14:27, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
• Criteria 3b. I think that there is insufficient information in the article to make it a comprehensive topic. It the missing information is not available, then it probably is not possible to write a GA on this topic. I think that omissions may include: Snowman (talk) 14:16, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

• The names of the people who proposed starting the project and why it was considered needed. Snowman (talk) 14:09, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

• You've got to be kidding me. You want the names of the people who proposed the missile? Do you understand what you're asking for? Parsecboy (talk) 14:40, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

• Funding was not continued apparently, but the article does not say anything about funding estimations or the economic climate. The are no reasons given for cancelling the project. Snowman (talk) 14:09, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
• I think the project should be discussed with the political and economic climate of the time in the USA and relevant parts of the world. Snowman (talk) 14:09, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
• Apparently some work was done on the missile before is was cancelled and I think that it is a major omission that details of what was done and by who is not included. What firms were contracted and how much were they paid? Which parts were official secrets, if any? When will official secrets (if any) be divulged? Snowman (talk) 14:09, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

• The article currently contains all information that is available in reliable sources - nothing further can be said on the topic. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 14:27, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

• If there is no more information that can be added to this article at this juncture, then it is likely to be an article of limited subject matter that could only reach GA standard after more information is released. Snowman (talk) 14:38, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
• (EC) No, no actual work was done on the missile before it was canceled. Please read the following line from the article; "...before any formal specifications for the ZBGM-75 could be developed or requests for proposals from industry issued..." And are you seriously asking for classified information? Parsecboy (talk) 14:40, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

• The work was started in May 1966 and cancelled sometime in 1967. So what happened during this time? Were any informal or provisional specifications made? The worked on the silo, so they must have known appropriately how big it was going to be, at least. The article does not say anything about classified information - perhaps another omission. Of course, it is not possible to get secret information for Wiki articles, but sometimes after 30 years information is released by governments. Another omission is the dimensions of the silos. Snowman (talk) 14:52, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

• Do you know how classified material works? If it's classified, we cannot possibly know that it exists. Are you asking for us to speculate about the possibility of still-classified material that might someday be released?
• In the UK certain things are released after 30 years and some after even more time. For example, we know that cabinet discussions will be published after 30 years. So where is all the costing information on the missle, and who suggested starting the project, and who worked on it? Snowman (talk) 15:10, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

• I'm sorry, I thought we were talking about missiles designed in the US, not the UK. Classified material in the United States is never automatically declassified, it has to be approved by the Department of Defense before it is released. Parsecboy (talk) 15:14, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

• I do not know how this is organised in the USA, but it seems plausible that classified material may be declassified by the Department of Defence. Anyway, when relevant information has been released in the USA, then it be used as a source for significant omissions in the article. Snowman (talk) 18:02, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

• Please read WP:CRYSTALBALL. Parsecboy (talk) 18:11, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

• I would have thought that it was fairly certain that a more complete article is possible when relevant information is unclassified. Snowman (talk) 18:19, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

• I'm sorry, but we don't write articles about what you are fairly certain exists. Parsecboy (talk) 18:28, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
• Except we have no idea when - or even if - that information will ever be declassified. There's stuff from WW2 that's still classified and has no prospect of ever being unclassified because it's still relevant to modern security concerns. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 18:32, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

• And no, they worked on the super-hardening technology for the Minuteman missiles, they did no actual work for the BGM-75. Parsecboy (talk) 15:02, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
• "super-hardening technology" features in the article and it is just jargon to me, and I am puzzled between hardened silos and super-hardening. Snowman (talk) 15:10, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

• Then I humbly suggest you are out of your depth on this issue, and you might want to consider withdrawing this review. Parsecboy (talk) 15:14, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

• I think that Jargon should be reduced so that readers find the article easy to read and do not feel that the article is out of their depth. Snowman (talk) 16:53, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

• This is not the Simple English Misplaced Pages. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 17:17, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

• I think that many reviewers are aware of the difficulty of reading jargon in the en Wiki. Snowman (talk) 18:03, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

• But we do not dumb it down when jargon-y terms are unavoidable due to the nature of the subject. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 18:32, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

• Criteria 3b. Possible omission: sizes of the structures discussed including the silos. Snowman (talk)

• They were never designed. Therefore, there is no known size. Which should be obvious. Parsecboy (talk) 15:14, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

• The article says that they were large. How large? Snowman (talk) 18:20, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

• You have got to be joking. This is starting to get ridiculous. Do you know that being disruptive to prove a point is prohibited? Parsecboy (talk) 18:27, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

• It should be noted this came about after this, so it does appear slightly WP:POINTY now that you mention it... - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 18:32, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

• Criteria 5. The article is inherently unstable, because of a large number of omissions. If information about the missile or the project to build the missile becomes available, then the article would need rewriting or huge expansions. Snowman (talk) 16:53, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

• Now you are making me question your knowledge of the Good Article criteria. #5 refers to the stability of the article, as in, whether there are on-going disputes or edit wars. Are you sure you know what you are doing? Parsecboy (talk) 16:59, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
• Er, yeah, that's not what criterion #5 means. At all. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 17:17, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

• It seems common sense to me that any sort on article unsuitability would exclude GA status. My point is that an article may not be illegible for GA status because it is inherently unstable. This is described as "... article of limited subject matter or inherent instability" in Misplaced Pages:Featured topics where FAs and GAs can be collected together in a "book". Snowman (talk) 17:44, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

• Except that is not what #5 means, as it explicitly says "due to an edit war or content dispute". And calling the article "inherently unstable" because of "omissions" in this case is WP:CRYSTALBALLING. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 17:48, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

• If "unstable" has that narrow definition in the GA criteria, then the large omission of private, secret, or un-publiced information that make the article inherently unstable would fail the article in criteria 3a. Snowman (talk) 18:15, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages:WIAGA#cite_note-4. Are you honestly this unfamiliar with the GA Criteria? I'm starting to think you've long-since realized you were wrong to start this GAR, but are too proud to admit it, and so you have resorted to throwing everything you can think of, in the hopes that something will stick. Please learn what the criteria for a Good Article is and is not. Parsecboy (talk) 18:20, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
• From your statement, it's obvious that you were unaware of the detail of criterion #5 - which strongly indicates you didn't bother to read the GAC before opening this GAR. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 18:32, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages good article reassessment